The "drive until you qualify" approach to finding housing that you can afford is a well established practice. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have friends who are right now looking for a grade-related home under the C$1 million mark. This constraint, as most of you know, is pushing them to the outer reaches of Toronto's suburbs. But if it were up to them, it would be their preference to stay in the city. According to the "two millennials" behind
The "drive until you qualify" approach to finding housing that you can afford is a well established practice. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have friends who are right now looking for a grade-related home under the C$1 million mark. This constraint, as most of you know, is pushing them to the outer reaches of Toronto's suburbs. But if it were up to them, it would be their preference to stay in the city. According to the "two millennials" behind
There's a lot to be said about this. For one, home prices across many/most markets are way up. Earlier this week on the blog it was mentioned that the average price of a US home is up about 19% year-over-year. This is likely unsustainable. We are coming off of a period of easy money policies and at some point things will normalize along with the broader economy. Looking at the equity and crypto markets, it may be happening right now, but I don't really know. (Fred Wilson wrote a post last year calling this "one of the great asset bubbles of modern times.")
We know that the centralizing forces inherent to most cities have been weakened during this pandemic. For periods of time, they were completely off. So it is no surprise that we have seen greater decentralization (sprawl) than what might have ordinarily happened. I was in a (zoom) meeting this past week with somebody who has spent the last two years traveling around South America while working remotely. It sounded like a lot of fun and I was admittedly a little bit envious of her adventures. But as I argued at the beginning of this year, I think most people are going back to offices and this centralizing force will have an impact on real estate.
Because "driving until you qualify" is a function of an affordability constraint, it tells you certain things about consumer preference, but not all things. What I mean by this is that it tells you that somebody is willing to trade the cost of a commute for more space and/or the housing type of their choice. This has been an easier trade during COVID because the cost of commuting has been relatively -- albeit temporarily -- low for many people. So less of a discount for distance. But what I think this doesn't tell you is what true consumer preference would be if all things were more equal and we increased housing supply and options in other areas of our cities.
At the same time, there's a very real question of whether the measuring stick in the above chart should be a grade-related detached house? Is this a reasonable expectation in the same way it was for prior generations? I am not a fan of dictating what people should and shouldn't do. But maybe 100km away from the core becomes untenable. And again, maybe if we increased both supply and options, we would find new housing preferences revealing themselves. I am specifically thinking of those who would prefer to stay in the city, but can't find something they think is suitable.
At the end of the day, we can't ignore the fact that we are profoundly hypocritical when it comes to the delivery of new housing. We acknowledge that we're in a housing crisis and we acknowledge that we need more affordable housing (both for sale and for rent), and yet we continue to make it systematically more difficult and more expensive to deliver it. The development charges, parkland fees, and many other costs that continue to increase and get applied to new housing are a real worry to those in the industry.
It is a worry because we're all wondering how much price elasticity is left in the market. That is, how much more can consumers afford before they stop buying and renting? It is a worry because it means that new rental housing, which has always been a challenge to pencil in our market, is now completely infeasible in many more submarkets. Our solution to all of this is to mandate a certain number of affordable units in new developments. But this is yet another tax on new housing.
To be fair, the delivery of new housing is subject to countless competing interests. This is arguably why it is such a tricky problem to solve and why there are no easy answers. But that's what we do around here. We explore new ideas. And maybe, just maybe, there are other options besides just driving until you qualify. Next up (or soon up): A look at the competing interests behind new housing.
Each quarter, HSH.com publishes a report that looks at the annual income required to quality for a residential mortgage in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. To do this, they look at the median home price for each city and then apply a 28% debt-to-income ratio (principal and interest payments divided by before tax salary). They also assume a 20% down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. In their latest report, that comes with an interest rate of 3.15%.
Below is a chart showing what they consider to be the 10 most affordable and the 10 least affordable metros (chart via the New York Times). I don't think the cities on this list will necessarily surprise many of you (though I didn't think Pittsburgh was this affordable), but it is interesting to see it all quantified. It's also worth thinking about what might happen to these figures as that 3.15% number comes down. Shockingly, the price of highly-levered assets tends to be correlated with financing costs.
Here's a chart from Knight Frank's 2019 Global Affordability Monitor that I think you'll find interesting:
It compares real home price growth and real household income growth (after tax) over the last 5 years for 32 world cities. The bolded percentages represent the former and the non-bolded percentages represent the latter.
There's a lot to be said about this. For one, home prices across many/most markets are way up. Earlier this week on the blog it was mentioned that the average price of a US home is up about 19% year-over-year. This is likely unsustainable. We are coming off of a period of easy money policies and at some point things will normalize along with the broader economy. Looking at the equity and crypto markets, it may be happening right now, but I don't really know. (Fred Wilson wrote a post last year calling this "one of the great asset bubbles of modern times.")
We know that the centralizing forces inherent to most cities have been weakened during this pandemic. For periods of time, they were completely off. So it is no surprise that we have seen greater decentralization (sprawl) than what might have ordinarily happened. I was in a (zoom) meeting this past week with somebody who has spent the last two years traveling around South America while working remotely. It sounded like a lot of fun and I was admittedly a little bit envious of her adventures. But as I argued at the beginning of this year, I think most people are going back to offices and this centralizing force will have an impact on real estate.
Because "driving until you qualify" is a function of an affordability constraint, it tells you certain things about consumer preference, but not all things. What I mean by this is that it tells you that somebody is willing to trade the cost of a commute for more space and/or the housing type of their choice. This has been an easier trade during COVID because the cost of commuting has been relatively -- albeit temporarily -- low for many people. So less of a discount for distance. But what I think this doesn't tell you is what true consumer preference would be if all things were more equal and we increased housing supply and options in other areas of our cities.
At the same time, there's a very real question of whether the measuring stick in the above chart should be a grade-related detached house? Is this a reasonable expectation in the same way it was for prior generations? I am not a fan of dictating what people should and shouldn't do. But maybe 100km away from the core becomes untenable. And again, maybe if we increased both supply and options, we would find new housing preferences revealing themselves. I am specifically thinking of those who would prefer to stay in the city, but can't find something they think is suitable.
At the end of the day, we can't ignore the fact that we are profoundly hypocritical when it comes to the delivery of new housing. We acknowledge that we're in a housing crisis and we acknowledge that we need more affordable housing (both for sale and for rent), and yet we continue to make it systematically more difficult and more expensive to deliver it. The development charges, parkland fees, and many other costs that continue to increase and get applied to new housing are a real worry to those in the industry.
It is a worry because we're all wondering how much price elasticity is left in the market. That is, how much more can consumers afford before they stop buying and renting? It is a worry because it means that new rental housing, which has always been a challenge to pencil in our market, is now completely infeasible in many more submarkets. Our solution to all of this is to mandate a certain number of affordable units in new developments. But this is yet another tax on new housing.
To be fair, the delivery of new housing is subject to countless competing interests. This is arguably why it is such a tricky problem to solve and why there are no easy answers. But that's what we do around here. We explore new ideas. And maybe, just maybe, there are other options besides just driving until you qualify. Next up (or soon up): A look at the competing interests behind new housing.
Each quarter, HSH.com publishes a report that looks at the annual income required to quality for a residential mortgage in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. To do this, they look at the median home price for each city and then apply a 28% debt-to-income ratio (principal and interest payments divided by before tax salary). They also assume a 20% down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. In their latest report, that comes with an interest rate of 3.15%.
Below is a chart showing what they consider to be the 10 most affordable and the 10 least affordable metros (chart via the New York Times). I don't think the cities on this list will necessarily surprise many of you (though I didn't think Pittsburgh was this affordable), but it is interesting to see it all quantified. It's also worth thinking about what might happen to these figures as that 3.15% number comes down. Shockingly, the price of highly-levered assets tends to be correlated with financing costs.
Here's a chart from Knight Frank's 2019 Global Affordability Monitor that I think you'll find interesting:
It compares real home price growth and real household income growth (after tax) over the last 5 years for 32 world cities. The bolded percentages represent the former and the non-bolded percentages represent the latter.
Amsterdam saw a real home price change of 63.6%, but a household income change of only 4.4% (although the circle looks to be in the wrong spot if this number is correct).
Moscow, on the other hand, saw flat home prices (0.1%) and a 22.7% increase in household income.
Though San Francisco is the star in terms of income growth.
Sao Paulo, unfortunately, saw a dramatic decline in both home prices and incomes. It's in the bottom left corner.
When I look at this chart, I don't see a strong correlation between household incomes and home prices. And the proportions of the chart tell you that the y-axis is moving more than the x-axis.
But if the top number exceeds the bottom number, then you could come to the conclusion that housing affordability has gotten worse over the last 5 years.
Amsterdam saw a real home price change of 63.6%, but a household income change of only 4.4% (although the circle looks to be in the wrong spot if this number is correct).
Moscow, on the other hand, saw flat home prices (0.1%) and a 22.7% increase in household income.
Though San Francisco is the star in terms of income growth.
Sao Paulo, unfortunately, saw a dramatic decline in both home prices and incomes. It's in the bottom left corner.
When I look at this chart, I don't see a strong correlation between household incomes and home prices. And the proportions of the chart tell you that the y-axis is moving more than the x-axis.
But if the top number exceeds the bottom number, then you could come to the conclusion that housing affordability has gotten worse over the last 5 years.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
